[saintalfonzo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by QQQ /img/forum/go_quote.gif If you 6'5", yeah, if 6'0'' - not so much.

Yeah, nevermind frame size

I'm 6' 2" with a large frame, and look anorexic if I weigh 220lbs. I weigh 250lbs with 16% body fat.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ericj /img/forum/go_quote.gif Uhm. When penicillin was originally isolated, it was the first time we used beta lactam rings as an antibiotic. The bacteria that were common to the human population at the time had never seen anything like a beta lactam ring, and the use of penicillin was wildly successful. But bacteria breed and mutate at a furious pace - some mutations are beneficial and some are not. Beta lactam rings inhibit cell wall growth in bacteria. Bacteria communicate with each other - sort of - by shooting out little pieces of RNA. It turns out that bacteria can evolve the ability to produce strands of beta lactamase and shoot those out outstead. These are like little knives that chop up the beta lactam rings. This is an example of what they call a 'resistant strain'. So we've developed antibiotics like ceftin that have a beta lactamase inhibitor attached to them - this is like catching the knife that has been thrown at you. And so goes the arms war with bacteria - but it's not as though every streptococcus you might catch today is producing beta lactamase. In short, your body does not build up a resistance. Your infection evolves a defense. There's a difference. I'm not well informed about which antibiotics are in use with livestock, but I'm going to guess that it's the cheap stuff. Cows are unlikely to be breeding grounds for zithromax-resistant bacteria. I haven't seen an explanation of this that addresses the fact that sucrose in the stomach becomes chemically identical to HFCS in the stomach due to exposure to digestive acids.

You a governmental person giving us obfuscated misinformation by any chance? What I really meant to say is that the bacteria strains can become immune to the anti-biotics and not our bodies, sorry. The more you take anti-biotics the less effective thye bexcome in our bodies. But what I basically told you is a real concern in the medical field and was expllkained to me as such by a doctor because I had to take anti-biotics for longer than normal due to my ulcers becoming infected. You should take anti-biotics as little as possible for the reason I said so putting them into our bodies through consumption of meat is just dumb.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Thanks, someone who actually has some knowledge is arguing.

You call obfuscated misinformation knowledge? You are gullible.

 

[milkweg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dallan /img/forum/go_quote.gif Using antibiotics kills the good bacteria that we need in our system to help it operate correctly, thus people who need to take antibiotics continually..ie my brother with lime disease, have to also take probiotics and eat a lot of cultured foods like yogurt to keep there colons healthy. In addition to this antibiotics keep our bodies from developing their own immunities to disease by artificially protecting them. So if we are taking in an unknown amount through the meat it is damaging.

See, dudes? Here's a person with real practical knowledge and not some pseudo science BS.

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif You a governmental person giving us obfuscated misinformation by any chance? What I really meant to say is that the bacteria strains can become immune to the anti-biotics and not our bodies, sorry. The more you take anti-biotics the less effective thye bexcome in our bodies. But what I basically told you is a real concern in the medical field and was expllkained to me as such by a doctor because I had to take anti-biotics for longer than normal due to my ulcers becoming infected. You should take anti-biotics as little as possible for the reason I said so putting them into our bodies through consumption of meat is just dumb.

No, I'm just a mild-mannered software analyst who isn't prone to magical thinking or chicken-littleism.

I think there are absolutely some feed lots and slaughterhouses that abuse antibiotics, but i think the situation is very far from some nightmare where every hamburger is dripping with broad spectrum antibiotics.


Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif See, dudes? Here's a person with real practical knowledge and not some pseudo science BS.

what part of my arguments so far has been pseudo-science bs?

 

[milkweg]

All science is pseudo until proven to be fact. You remind me of the time I went into a cooking group on Usenet and asked how long it is safe to leave food out at room temp after it has been cooked. I already knew the answer but only one person in that group knew the answer and he got flamed for stating facts while you remind of the person who claimed her grandparents left food out all night and never died from it so leaving food out all night must be safe for her too. Are you aware that a lot of what people attribute to mild flu etc. is actually due to food poisoning because they left food on the counter too long? Are you aware of the literally thousands of germs in your shopping cart at the grocery store because the twats are too lazy to wash them every day? How many deaths or illnesses do you think are due to negligence like you propose? You don't have a clue and yet choose to call me chicken little because I do have a clue.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif All science is pseudo until proven to be fact. You remind me of the time I went into a cooking group on Usenet and asked how long it is safe to leave food out at room temp after it has been cooked. I already knew the answer but only one person in that group knew the answer and he got flamed for stating facts while you remind of the person who claimed her grandparents left food out all night and never died from it so leaving food out all night must be safe for her too. Are you aware that a lot of what people attribute to mild flu etc. is actually due to food poisoning because they left food on the counter too long? Are you aware of the literally thousands of germs in your shopping cart at the grocery store because the twats are too lazy to wash them every day? How many deaths or illnesses do you think are due to negligence like you propose? You don't have a clue and yet choose to call me chicken little because I do have a clue.

I think pseudo is a misnomer - science is made up of hypothesis, theory, and fact - theories and ideas are part of science, and are by no means "false" - theories and hypothesis form the basis of our current "knowledge" without proof. Science without fact is commonplace - its like politics. Like it or not, live with it. It is clear he has at least put effort into learning his "pseudo-science"

 

[milkweg]

And so have I, and what I say is fact. He may use bigger words than me but that doesn't make him smarter. That's just a ruse to make you think he is smarter than he really is. Common tactic of the pseudo elite.

 

[rangen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif All science is pseudo until proven to be fact.

Actually, "proof" is not really a concept in science. The common expression is "proof is for mathematicians and distillers." All you've got is the continuum between hypothesis and theory, and another continuum within theory, depending on how well-supported the theory is. A theory can be extremely well-supported with evidence (e.g. The General Theory of Relativity), but it's still called a theory. That's because there's no way to know for sure that an alternate theory might not explain the available data even better. So there is no discontinuous jump into "proven" in science, as there is in mathematics, just degrees of evidentiary support relative to alternate theories.

 

[revolink24]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rangen /img/forum/go_quote.gif Actually, "proof" is not really a concept in science. The common expression is "proof is for mathematicians and distillers." All you've got is the continuum between hypothesis and theory, and another continuum within theory, depending on how well-supported the theory is. A theory can be extremely well-supported with evidence (e.g. The General Theory of Relativity), but it's still called a theory. That's because there's no way to know for sure that an alternate theory might not explain the available data even better. So there is no discontinuous jump into "proven" in science, as there is in mathematics, just degrees of evidentiary support relative to alternate theories.

You mention "continuums" but fail to recognize that those "continuums" (poor choice of word, btw, spectrum would be more accurate) are almost solely comprised of two polar opposites: the generally accepted and the generally unaccepted. There are scientific theories that have been proven and are in general use - in which case the use of the word theory is just a bit of insurance as well as nostalgia - insurance because there are always things such as the "theories" AGAINST the theory of relativity now. You think that there are no proven theories, but what then is a law? Proofs are for mathematicians and distillers, but that is not to say that science cannot be proven.

Quote:

And so have I, and what I say is fact. He may use bigger words than me but that doesn't make him smarter. That's just a ruse to make you think he is smarter than he really is. Common tactic of the pseudo elite.

I never once said that you were wrong. Contrasting theories (think origin of the universe), however, are the basis of science, and because you state "fact" does not mean that his "theory" becomes obsolete: even if he goes too far to try to appear believable (which I will admit, as with the poster above.) The most educated minds will disagree on major issues. Think evolution: Evolution is generally accepted as a fact, but does that rule out the possibility of intelligent design?

 

[ericj]

Quote:

Originally Posted by milkweg /img/forum/go_quote.gif All science is pseudo until proven to be fact. You remind me of the time I went into a cooking group on Usenet and asked how long it is safe to leave food out at room temp after it has been cooked. I already knew the answer but only one person in that group knew the answer and he got flamed for stating facts while you remind of the person who claimed her grandparents left food out all night and never died from it so leaving food out all night must be safe for her too. Are you aware that a lot of what people attribute to mild flu etc. is actually due to food poisoning because they left food on the counter too long? Are you aware of the literally thousands of germs in your shopping cart at the grocery store because the twats are too lazy to wash them every day? How many deaths or illnesses do you think are due to negligence like you propose? You don't have a clue and yet choose to call me chicken little because I do have a clue.

covered or uncovered? how long was it exposed after cooking and did it spend that time in an insulated or heated container?

what's the ph?

what's the relative humidity?

safe cold or safe reheated?

we have a government agency that gives us hard and fast numbers that are carefully chosen to save the largest possible number of lives, but i think, for example, the number of poisonings attributable to people munching on cold sausage & pepperoni pizza left in the box on the coffee table overnight is probably relatively low.

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by virometal /img/forum/go_quote.gif You can add portion size to that list. Americans eat just good old fashioned a-lot of food also. Thus for the obese, I would try to limit portion size first and foremost - easier said than done with factors considered such as low cost, availability, and marketing. It's an uphill fight with constant temptation.

People ate big portions in the 50s and 60s too.

A more significant difference is that back then owning a car and driving everywhere was less common. People still walked, bicycled and took public transportation. I'll bet more people back then still had jobs that kept them active as well.

 

[Earwax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by limpidglitch /img/forum/go_quote.gif It is really just about not consuming more than what you combust. To do this while still get all those good vitamins and minerals your body needs to function, you have to to eat something else than just pizzas, burgers, beer and soda.

That's it. If what you eat is lacking, you'll crave more and more just to make up the shortfall in nutritional value.

 

[rangen]

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You mention "continuums" but fail to recognize that those "continuums" (poor choice of word, btw) are almost solely comprised of two polar opposites: the generally accepted and the generally unaccepted.

Not at all. String theory, for example, ignoring for the sake of this argument the possibility of arguing that it is not yet a theory at all, is neither generally accepted nor generally unaccepted. It is tentatively accepted by what is probably a majority of theoretical physicists, sufficiently so that they are willing to bet their careers on it, and unaccepted by a very significant number. Ditto supersymmetry.

And where would this grouping of polar opposites place the General Theory of Relativity? It is extremely well supported by evidence. At the same time, it is known to be, to some degree, false -- that is to say, an insufficient theory with respect to reality, because it is incompatible with Quantum Mechanics, which is equally well supported. The picture is not so simple as you portray.

Quote:

Originally Posted by revolink24 /img/forum/go_quote.gif You think that there are no proven theories, but what then is a law?

Not something that advances your case in favor of the role of proof in science. From the Wikipedia definition of "Scientific Law"

Unlike a statutory law, there is no formal promulgation procedure for scientific laws; the term is simply an epithet which achieves legitimacy through widespread use. Nor is there a format repeal procedure even for widely discredited laws like Bode's law. Thus, although the term is generally accepted only for widely confirmed observations, not only is there no sharp distinction between a hypothesis and a scientific law, a scientific law might even be known to be false. (E.g. biogenetic law, law of contagion.)

The main difference between a scientific law and a theory is that a law does not include a model or explanation; it is simply an observation.

 

[Uncle Erik]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Earwax /img/forum/go_quote.gif People ate big portions in the 50s and 60s too.

No they did not. Here's a vintage soda bottle:

Please notice that it is 10 oz. Common sizes for soda bottles were 6 oz. to 12 oz. or so. Many of the vintage Coke bottles were 8 oz.

This is the "smaller" Big Gulp at 32 oz., though (IIRC) you can get them up to 96 oz. or even the 128 oz. mug like thing.

According to here there are 97 calories in 8 oz. of Coke Classic.

Let's look at the numbers. Back in the 1950s and 1960s, stopping off for a bottle of Coke meant taking in about 100 calories. On a diet of about 2,000, that's not so bad.

In the 2000s, stopping off for a 64 oz. Big Gulp is close to 800 calories.

On a 2,000 calorie diet, that's almost half of your daily intake. Even if you have four or five cans of Coke, you're still going to get 500, 600, 700 or more calories a day from the soda. Having a couple of refills of a 30 oz. drink at a fast food place also does this to you.

This is not rocket science. If you up calorie intake, you get fat. Each time you consume 3,500 calories more than you burn, you gain a pound. Considering the calorie inflation since the 1950s and 1960s, the cumulative weight gain makes sense.

Further, we eat more food than we did back then, too. Before I got into audio, I spent a lot of time finding junked furniture and restoring it. I still do now and then - it's good fun. At junk stores, I always browse the book sections for old tube electronics books, literature, cook books, as well as anything interesting. I've got some going back several decades. If you can draw conclusions from 1940s cookbooks, portions were much smaller than they were today. Again, calorie counts were far lower.

Just found it:

Extra calories rather than lack of exercise the culprit in obesity epidemic

This study released last month shows that it's the extra calories that put on the weight.